2026 (3) TMI 1401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... - -<br>Income Tax<br>Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Deepak Sharma, C.A. (Thru V.C.) For the Respondent : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals are filed by the revenue and cross objections by the assessee's against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), (hereinafter referred to 'ld. CIT (E)') dated 29.07.2025, 24.07.2025, 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....locations, whereas (ii) receipts from systematic commercial activity, even if from a Government department, constitute revenue receipts, and whether such mischaracterisation has led to an erroneous finding? 5. Whether, on the facts and in law, the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) on judicial precedents and decisions in assessee&#39;s earlier years was justified, when those decisions were rendered prior to the insertion of the Explanation to section 10(23C)(iiiab) and without considering the specific factual matrix of the present case, thereby resulting in a perverse conclusion? 6. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of Equalization fund and Obsolescence Fund w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ters 94,87,89,402 - B.2 Less 3% Levy paid to Govt. Library Fund 28,46,36,82 B. Net supply to Private distributers 92,03,25,720 39.24% C. Total supply 234,51,96,150 100.00% The assessee then claimed a sum of Rs. 55,29,25,828.51 as exempt income u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act being excess of income over expenditure. 5. The AO however, denied the same on following grounds:- i) Considering the nature of activities, the assessee Board is not an educational institution and has also not imparted formal education ii) The claim of the assessee that it is receiving budgetary grants from the Rajasthan Government has also not been established. iii) Since the assessee is in the busin....